Move Along, Nothing To See Here

Remember: Anybody who says that people who publicly oppose the gay-rights revolution will be punished for their beliefs is a liar, and if those people are punished, well, they deserved it, didn’t they?

Take the case of Crystal Dixon, an enemy of the people who was a University of Toledo administrator — until she wrote a letter to the editor that read, in part:

I respectfully submit a different perspective for Miller and Toledo Free Press readers to consider.

First, human beings, regardless of their choices in life, are of ultimate value to God and should be viewed the same by others. At the same time, one’s personal choices lead to outcomes either positive or negative.

As a Black woman who happens to be an alumnus of the University of Toledo’s Graduate School, an employee and business owner, I take great umbrage at the notion that those choosing the homosexual lifestyle are “civil rights victims.” Here’s why. I cannot wake up tomorrow and not be a Black woman. I am genetically and biologically a Black woman and very pleased to be so as my Creator intended. Daily, thousands of homosexuals make a life decision to leave the gay lifestyle evidenced by the growing population of PFOX (Parents and Friends of Ex Gays) and Exodus International just to name a few. Frequently, the individuals report that the impetus to their change of heart and lifestyle was a transformative experience with God; a realization that their choice of same-sex practices wreaked havoc in their psychological and physical lives.

Ms. Dixon argued in her lawsuit, among other things, that the university had fired her for speech protected under the First Amendment. But a court ruled on Monday that her remarks, as a public employee, were sufficiently insubordinate for the university to be legally justified in firing her. The judge said that the university had the right to protect its interests in making gay employees feel welcome, attracting prospective employees who may be gay, and avoiding potential discrimination lawsuits, all of which may have been threatened by Ms. Dixon’s comments.

Though Ms. Dixon, who worked in human resources, ought to have phrased her views more carefully, it is hard to imagine any form of stating those views that would have protected her job. It’s not the way she said it; it’s that she said it at all.

At Gallaudet University, the school’s first chief diversity officer was placed on leave after signing a petition to put an anti-gay-marriage initiative on the Maryland ballot. Angela McCaskill, a gay, deaf black woman, signed the petition at her church. After a three-month imbroglio, McCaskill was just reinstated. More about that controversy here:

At many colleges and universities, students and faculty members have a range of views on gay rights and gay marriage, and express them throughout the political process. But the issue is more complicated for administrators who have responsibility for promoting equal opportunity on campuses. In 2008, a human resources administrator at the University of Toledo was fired after she published a newspaper column arguing that gay people don’t need civil rights protection. The administrator, Crystal Dixon, sued the university, but a judge ruled that Toledo was within its rights in firing Dixon because of the nature of her position; her comments, the judge ruled, would impact her ability to do her job.

That is the same argument McCaskill’s critics make, saying that because her job is to create a safe, inclusive environment for students of all races, ethnicities, genders, and sexual orientations, her signature on the petition interferes with that goal. McCaskill, however, emphasized that she merely exercised her right to sign a petition and did not actively espouse a particular opinion.

“Anyone who works at a university has the right to espouse any viewpoint, assuming that’s done in a respectful way,” said Benjamin Reese, president of the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education and the vice president for institutional equity at Duke University. “But I think all of us in senior roles at colleges and universities recognize that there is not a clear demarcation between our college and university service and our private life.”

For diversity officers, Reese said, the line can be even fuzzier. Though he did not want to comment on McCaskill’s case without knowing the details, Reese did say that university administrators should recognize that often it is impossible to ever completely dissociate from their university role.

The line between a private action and a public action can be hard to pin down, too. Shane Windmeyer, the executive director of Campus Pride, pointed out that signing a petition is different from going into a voting booth. But signing a petition, he added, is also very different from standing outside with a picket sign.

“At the end of the day, it begs the question of what was she thinking,” Windmeyer said. “It’s also important to recognize that she has done many things in her job that were LGBT-supportive. I think we need to look at this situation from the lens of a student – the student should be able to sit down with the chief diversity officer and say, ‘What were you thinking?’ and then they should be able to share what they felt.

Notice that McCaskill, in executing her duties, apparently hadn’t done anything perceived as anti-gay on campus. She had a reputation of being fair and open — a reputation that, presumably, helped get her hired in the first place. All she did was sign a petition asking for an issue to be put on the ballot. Though this situation had a good outcome for McCaskill, she was put through three months of having to fight for her job — something that nobody would want to face. Better not to sign the petition, or write a letter to the editor, or say anything, ever.

Let’s review our catechism: Anybody who says that people who publicly oppose the gay-rights revolution will be punished for their beliefs is a liar, and if those people are punished, well, they deserved it, didn’t they?

MORE FROM THIS AUTHOR

Hide 112 comments

112 Responses to Move Along, Nothing To See Here

@Joanna “The “standard” Christian teaching on race relations was one of slavery, segregation, and subjugation, taught by my church as recently as the early 90′s.”

I find it very, very hard to believe that any Christian church was advocating slavery into the 1990’s. Which church was this? Who was the pastor? The White Nationalist “churches” advocating something like this are not teaching anything standard.

You also wrote, “It may be traditional and Biblical to speak out boldly against homosexual people but it was once also true that people spoke out boldly for discrimination based on race and ethnicity as late as the 70′s with little ill effect. As I recall Liberty University still prohibits interracial dating.”

Apart from the obvious logic problems with this statement, you recall incorrectly. Liberty University does not prohibit interracial dating. Even Bob Jones (a school viewed with skepticism by a lot of evangelical institutions) came around on this issue.

“Is it OK for a Catholic school to fire a teacher for publicly supporting gay marriage? If so, why shouldn’t employers who take a different view have the same privilege when employees publicly oppose the employer’s position?”

I’m not a lawyer, so I don’t know the legal intricacies involved, but in my estimation, private institutions should have wide latitude to fire employees who embarrass the company or other wise piss off the boss. This would mean the Orbitz should be allowed to fire an employee who writes an editorial opposed to Gay Marriage and Chik-fil-a should be allowed to fire an employee who writes an editorial in support of Gay Marriage. I think both companies would be acting immorally and I would oppose those actions, but I don’t think they should be illegal.

I draw a distinction with a public tax funded institution (public schools, police departments, etc…). Since the employer is a government agent (or appears to the public as such) the employer should be constrained by first amendment considerations – if the state fires you for saying things the state doesn’t like, that is a lot different than the catholic church firing you for saying something you don’t like.

Like I said, I’m no lawyer, so maybe it isn’t possible to draw these distinctions legally and I’m sure there are all sorts of subtleties I’m overlooking.

“If conservative Chrisitans want employers to take a hands off position to religion, conservative Christians should do so when they are the employers.” I agree, but I draw a distinction between private employers and state employers.

“And yes, the growing support for gay rights means that publicly opposing gay rights can cause you problems. But that’s what people with minority viewpoints always faced. The right of Catholic employers to discriminate against employees who express non-Catholic views should be the same as the right of non-Catholic employers to discriminate against employees who express the views of the Catholic hierarchy.”
I guess I’m just a utopian dreamer then. I’ll go back to Adlai Stevenson’s statement – A free society is where it is safe to be unpopular. I’d construe safe to include safe from fear of losing one’s job. But then I’m a free speech anarchist I guess…

The characterization of homosexuality as “an identity” is the product of a political agenda, not an objective fact. The only objective definition of “homosexuality” is “the practice of engaging in sexual relations with members of one’s own sex.” Those who do so are homosexual; those who refrain from doing so are not homosexual. It matters not what their “identity” is.

How then do you explain people like Eve Tushnet? She identifies as a homosexual, but believes that homosexual acts are sinful and thus remains celibate. If the only possible definition of homosexuality is the practice of engaging in sexual relations with members of one’s own sex, then how can a celibate homosexual exist?

Siarlys continues to demonstrate that the right to free speech in no way guarantees that what is said will be remotely true:

Church Lady has cast herself somewhere to the right of the National Right to Work Committee with her blatant advocacy of employers’ right to fire any employee for any reason or no reason.

Nowhere did I say I advocate for employers’ right to fire people for exercising their free speech rights. I merely pointed out that it’s perfectly legal to do so, and no protections are offered in these cases. And that in fact employers exercise this power of theirs all the time, on all kinds of issues, without having to explain themselves. They can be shamed for doing this, and face public censure for it, but they can’t legally be stopped.

In fact, the first thing I said about this, is that it represented a serious flaw in our civil rights protections, and that it could only be remedied by extending the first amendment to a person’s employment. Just as we make it illegal to hire or fire on the basis of race, sex, religion, and ethnicity, we could also make it illegal to discriminate on the basis of one’s first amendment exercise of free speech. I even asked Rod to sign onto that, but he has demurred. As have you, thus far. Siarlys claims that Rod has agreed to “blanket protection”, because he used that word, but Rod’s blanket has some very big holes in it:

I would tend to favor blanket protections, but I think it’s reasonable for a newspaper to prohibit its reporters (versus opinion writers) from taking sides in controversial public issues. I’m more in favor of common sense and voluntary tolerance.

So much for Siarlys’ reading skills. Rod’s “blanket protection” turns out to be purely voluntary on the part of employers, who should be guided by “common sense”. One presumes, sense common to Rod and his peers, rather than other groups with different views. It’s not hard to see how such a blanket would be utterly meaningless. Rod can instantly see instances in his own industry where it shouldn’t apply. I’m sure everyone else can see many instances in the world familiar to them where it shouldn’t apply. What do we end up with then? Precisely the same situation we are in now. Of course all business think they are using “common sense” and protecting their own interests when they fire someone for their free speech exercise. Every employer has their own sense for where that line is, and will decide that for themselves, and act accordingly. The employer in this case clearly evaluated the situation, made their determination, and acted accordingly. All by what they felt was in their organization’s best interests. And yet, somehow some people find this unfair? Well, the only thing that’s unfair about it, is leaving the matter to “common sense” and “voluntary tolerance”, because there’s nothing fair in either of those standards.

So I will repeat my claim: the only way to address this effectively, is to extend the right of free speech to employment discrimination laws. Of course employers should use common sense, and of course they should be tolerant, but without actual civil rights protection, no employee will ever be safe from this kind of intimidation. And we will have endless examples of this kind of controversy.

As to Rod’s notion that newspapers should be able to fire reporters that express opinions on subjects they cover, why does this have to be the case? Personally, I see nothing wrong, and lots right, with reporters expressing their opinions on subjects. We all know they have them, we just don’t know what they are. Knowing what they are, helps us judge their reporting. That’s how they do things in England and much of Europe, for example, and I think they do a better job of it than American journalists for the most part. This silly pretense of “journalistic objectivity” has no real value, other than as a dodge to create a false image of integrity, when that is seldom actually the case.

One thing to add: any such civil rights law ought to contain a protection for employers also, to not be held accountable for their employee’s free speech statements (as opposed to speech they make in their employers’ name as a part of their job).

From Peter Hitchens, whose nation is a wee bit further down this road than ours:

“Christians, whose ideas once ruled, must be repeatedly and rather angrily re-educated into understanding that they are now just another minority. If they attempt to act as if their beliefs are still the accepted national religion, they must and will be humiliated. Eventually, they will learn, as subjugated peoples do eventually learn, often some years after their formal subjugation takes place. And as our nominally free society has decided that the main method of controlling speech is the threat of unemployment, it will be in the workplace that these clashes will almost always happen.”

OK, back to what you said, what I said, and what Rod said. I am relieved to know that you are appalled to be cast as a supporter of National Right to Work legislation. But you have, in this post, and a later one, taken positive DELIGHT in asserting that its OK to fire employees who voice reservations about homosexuality, because, after all, its an employer’s right to fire employees for any reason they want. The hypothetical “reasonable man” (or woman) could not read your comment without believing you fully approve.

I acknowledge that you are actually being opportunistic, not taken a carefully thought out position against workers rights. Its the same disease suffered by judges who indulge in questionable reasoning to obtain a desired result in a specific case… and set a precedent that does untold damage once its on the books.

Rod said TWO things. He’s in favor of blanket protections, and he’d like to see it handled by voluntary adherence. The former is sound in principle. The latter is hopelessly idealistic. Capitalists don’t do the right thing because its the right thing, but because it will cost them not to do so.

the only way to address this effectively, is to extend the right of free speech to employment discrimination laws.

Indeed. And then, employees who believe that homosexuality is a sin, and two persons of the same sex are not, and cannot every be, a marriage, will be immune to losing their jobs because they made such a remark in public, among the many, many, opinions employees will not be subject to losing their jobs over. You OK with that?

Writing separately about Eve Tushnet & etc. … It is not necessary to consider homosexuality an IDENTITY to acknowledge being attracted to one’s own sex, while believing that it would be wrong to act on that urge. All it takes is, sexual hormones exist, they exist for a reason, sometimes they act, within a given individual, in a different manner than originally intended. An individual aware of this is responsible to refrain from acting on the (objectively speaking) disordered impulses. That doesn’t make the individual less of a human being. A person can also be deaf without considering that their IDENTITY, or can embrace it AS their defining characteristic. Auto-immune disorders are a part of human biochemistry operating in a harmful rather than a helpful manner … but that doesn’t create and IDENTITY.

You seem incapable of actually reading anything I say without inferring some emotional content that exists only in your mind.

I take zero delight in pointing out the reality of the lack of employee free speech rights, and the power of employers to discipline or fire employees for exercising free speech. I think it’s wrong and stupid. But it’s how our laws have been interpreted for as long as this country has been in existence. So it needs to be repeated, that this is the result of that situation, and that it’s been faced by everyone else for a very long time. People with unpopular views have had to keep them muffled for fear of losing their jobs for over two centuries. Rod is just now crying about it, because it effects people who are opposed to SSM, now that this is becoming an unpopular view. I say, you’re a little late to the cause, but if you’re serious, then let’s extend the first amendment to all employees.

I hear nothing but crickets.

His claim to support “blanket protections” is completely meaningless if it requires voluntary compliance from employers. You might as well call for blanket protections from terrorism, by asking terrorists to voluntarily agree not to attack us.

And then, employees who believe that homosexuality is a sin, and two persons of the same sex are not, and cannot every be, a marriage, will be immune to losing their jobs because they made such a remark in public, among the many, many, opinions employees will not be subject to losing their jobs over. You OK with that?

I’m completely OK with that. If you had anything resembling reading skills, you’d know that already.

Clamdigger wrote: “My comments were directed to Heather, who metaphorically accused liberals of wishing Catholics dead in the river in Paris, whereas there is indeed a history of gays being killed, just for being gay.”

In case you are quite unaware of world history, there is indeed a history of Catholics being killed, just for being Catholic. In fact persecution, either individual or based on groups, is nothing new in the world or exclusive to people with a homosexuality problem. And, closeted or not, LGBT people have persecuted and murdered others throughout history as well.

This is very different than saying that homosexuals should be put to death, which is what “bloodthirsty” actually means.

Has Matt Barber argued that he should murder all homosexuals? Unless he did, you’re plainly lying and smearing him with the charge.

The CDC, in case you didn’t know, concerns itself with disease. Men who have sex with men infest society with HIV and syphilis in countries where homosexuality has been largely normalized. This means they are criminally responsible for transmitting deadly diseases in large numbers, and in much greater proportions than any other group. But they currently have total impunity to be so destructive and perverted.

That is not only self-destructive, but socially destructive as well.

Lastly, they then extort billions of dollars from the State in health care costs for the respective treatments, hogging resources that could otherwise go to help so many other victims that never did anything criminal or destructive, like abused children.

In other words, these people think that they are not accountable for their perverted sexual attitudes and behaviors, and that they State must pick up the tab for any destruction they cause.

And then, they want to throw every Catholic in the river. Metaphorically, of course.

Delighted to have your clarification Church Lady. When critical response forces you to think about what you are saying and what you really mean to be saying, it improves the discourse enormously. I too am fascinated by the possibility that social conservatives will now have to stand up for worker’s rights in a major, across-the-board way, to protect what is near and dear to them.